The lawfare against Trump takes a new twist

[Edgetho]

i u

nderstand enough of life to know that we will NEVER have a common interest in this country. why don't you leave?

Because this Country will be safe once dimocrap scum eradicate themselves.

Or maybe we can find places to put them. Like in Urban shitholes.

Yeah, that's it. They can be Ghetto Trash.

 

[BackAgain]

Here we are on the second page with you trying to keep me on the grammar mistake you tried to put off as editing.

Please, let it go and allow me to get back on topic! LOL

You’re off topic. Your deflection effort is again noted with appropriate derision.

Anyway, nobody is preventing you from trying to say something on topic. But you won’t.

 

[rampart]

Bush was correct but he did not say WMD were in Iraq. Bush was correct in saying Saddam Hussein is a grave and gathering danger.

But Saddam did have WMD. He had all of it trucked and flown out of Iraq into Syria.
Book called Saddam's Secrets

Georges Sada was one of Saddam's top generals and foremost military advisors. A truth-teller in a government that made the truth dangerous. A devout Christian in a Muslim country. And a man who would stand up for what was right?even at the risk of his own life.

In this eye-opening exposé, General Sada shares his bizarre yet amazing journey as an insider to one of history's most sinister regimes. He also, for the first time, reveals the disturbing truth about Saddam's plots to destroy Israel, hide weapons of mass destruction and overtake the Arab world. As an eye witness to history, Sada paints a painfully truthful picture of Hussein and his country that is at once personal and alarming, truthful and compelling, candid and sobering. It is a story guaranteed to send shock waves around the world.

if saddam was an evil dictator with wmds why didn;'t he use them? if syria had saddam's wmds, why didn't they use them?

 

[forkup]

Truth Social

Truth Social is America's "Big Tent" social media platform that encourages an open, free, and honest global conversation without discriminating on the basis of political ideology.

truthsocial.com

I’m shocked. Imagine asking the SCOTUS for what amounts to an advisory opinion.

Our courts don’t render advisory opinions. So, I expect the SCOTUS to take a pass on accepting the Special Persecutor’s “motion.” But, even so, maybe the guy is finally starting to dimly grasp that what he’s doing is improper.

Curious, what makes what Smith asks in his motion "advisory" as opposed to binding?

Is it that Scotus isn't in the business of being the final legal opinion anymore?

First, it is not unprecedented to ask. Second, anybody who has paid any attention both knows the Court of appeals will reject the immunity argument as it has been rejected before, or doubts that upon rejection it will end up in front of SCOTUS regardless. So what is your argument to not skip this step?

 

[Robert W]

if saddam was an evil dictator with wmds why didn;'t he use them? if syria had saddam's wmds, why didn't they use them?

Saddam counted on the WMD not being located by having them in Syria. He figured no WMD no attack. He was wrong. It was mostly Colin Powell who believed they were still in Syria.

 

[BackAgain]

Curious, what makes what Smith asks in his motion "advisory" as opposed to binding?

Is it that Scotus isn't in the business of being the final legal opinion anymore?

First, it is not unprecedented to ask. Second, anybody who has paid any attention both knows the Court of appeals will reject the immunity argument as it has been rejected before, or doubts that upon rejection it will end up in front of SCOTUS regardless. So what is your argument to not skip this step?

You need to understand what is meant by the term “advisory opinion.”

An advisory opinion is a non-binding interpretation of the law by a court,1 essentially the court providing advice on an abstract or hypothetical legal question. The Supreme Court has defined an “advisory opinion” as an “advance expression[ ] of legal judgment upon issues” that are not before a court in the form of litigation involving concrete claims by adverse litigants.2The Court has long held that the language in Article III authorizing federal court jurisdiction over certain “Cases” and “Controversies” prohibits federal courts from issuing advisory opinions.3The Court has explained that cases seeking advisory opinions are not justiciable, meaning that the federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide such cases.4

Overview of Advisory Opinions

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[forkup]

You need to understand what is meant by the term “advisory opinion.”

Overview of Advisory Opinions

www.law.cornell.edu

I see.

as an “advance expression[ ] of legal judgment upon issues” that are not before a court in the form of litigation involving concrete claims by adverse litigants.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that the issue is before a court in the form of litigation. As is illustrated by the fact that the judgement on the concrete ask of absolute immunity in the litigation is being appealed by Trump.

So, I'll ask again what makes the ask in this motion advisory?

 

[Batcat]

This was Trump's hope/plan all along. Like The Supreme's gave Bush Florida in 2000, Trump was hoping 2020 was going to happen the same way. Argue it all the way to the Supreme Court.

In one version of the steal, the Supreme's would say that each Senator gets 1 vote. And I believe if that's how they decided, Trump would have won. Bottom line is Trump wanted to overturn the elections with shady business. Just like Florida was "won" with shinanigans.

Did you realize that the polls in the panhandle of Florida are on a different time zone than the rest of Florida. They are an hour behind. Therefore when the polls closed in the main part of Florida the polls were still open in the panhandle. The panhandle is strongly Republican And I mean strongly.

The media called the election for Al Gore after the polls in the main part of Florida closed. People were still in line in the Panhandle and many likely gave up and returned home without casting a vote for Bush. Nobody wants to stand in line and I remember the lines were long in those days.

‘Polls Are Closed,’ They Lied

TAC Rewind: How the media nearly stole the 2000 election for Al Gore

www.theamericanconservative.com

 

[Dante]

Truth Social

Truth Social is America's "Big Tent" social media platform that encourages an open, free, and honest global conversation without discriminating on the basis of political ideology.

truthsocial.com

I’m shocked. Imagine asking the SCOTUS for what amounts to an advisory opinion.

Our courts don’t render advisory opinions. So, I expect the SCOTUS to take a pass on accepting the Special Persecutor’s “motion.” But, even so, maybe the guy is finally starting to dimly grasp that what he’s doing is improper.

Huh? "what amounts to?" You want people to believe a federal prosecutor with Smith's experience and knowledge is unaware of the facts?

"Federal courts cannot issue advisory opinions because of the Constitution's case-or-controversy requirement. State courts are not subject to the Constitution's case or controversy requirement and are therefore free to issue advisory opinions so long as their state constitutions allow." advisory opinion

Facts Matter
and you link is credible?

source: NYT (source Trump himself uses)

Special Counsel Asks Supreme Court to Decide Whether Trump Is Immune From Prosecution​

The request was unusual in two ways: Jack Smith asked the justices to rule before an appeals court acted, and he urged them to move with exceptional speed.

“This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin,” Mr. Smith wrote.

He added that speed was of the essence, as Mr. Trump’s appeal of a trial judge’s ruling rejecting his claim of immunity suspends the trial of the charges against him. The trial is scheduled to begin on March 4 in Federal District Court in Washington.

Now:

An advisory opinion is a non-binding interpretation of the law by a court,1. Advisory Opinion, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). essentially the court providing advice on an abstract or hypothetical legal question.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C1-4-1/ALDE_00013563/

 

[sealybobo]

What is keeping Biden and his family from being charged? Reports were all one had to do was read classified documents in the Biden garage.

Reports were all? What is that?

I heard Biden was teaching a class at a University on Classified documents. And when asked he turned them over.

What was Trump doing with them? Clearly he was selling them or giving them away. We caught him on tape ranting to a Mara Lago guest. "Look at this, I'm not even supposed to be showing you this"

Now you can lie and say he wasn't really showing them top secret info but you and I both know better.

Besides classified documents in Biden's garage. Did Biden tell an Australian businessman secrets about our nuclear subs? Trump did. And did Biden tell Russia Israel top secret info that they went and told Iran? Trump did.

Trump clearly mishandles top secret intel and he does for nefarious reasons.

 

[Dante]

I doubt he ever planned on having out of control political persecution be undertaken against him.

But once the Potato Administration’s Department of Miscarriage of Justice proceeded so corruptly, don’t care what strategy the Trump legal team undertook.

There’s no bargaining with corruption.

But again, I suspect that however Jerk Smith chooses to disingenuously “frame the issue” for the SCOTUS, the Court will see it for what it is: a request for an advisory opinion. Thus, they will decline to accept the filing and won’t rule one way or the other at this time.

Obviously, Smith is counting on this. He will treat it as permission to proceed. He will be wrong. But he will do it anyway. He’s a cynical ****.

There you go again. Just when I think you've grown up...

Keeper post

 

[sealybobo]

Did you realize that the polls in the panhandle of Florida are on a different time zone than the rest of Florida. They are an hour behind. Therefore when the polls closed in the main part of Florida the polls were still open in the panhandle. The panhandle is strongly Republican And I mean strongly.

The media called the election for Al Gore after the polls in the main part of Florida closed. People were still in line in the Panhandle and many likely gave up and returned home without casting a vote for Bush. Nobody wants to stand in line and I remember the lines were long in those days.

‘Polls Are Closed,’ They Lied

TAC Rewind: How the media nearly stole the 2000 election for Al Gore

www.theamericanconservative.com

Yes I know that but I also know that even including the panhandle, it was clear Gore won. That's why Fox called it for Gore.

And did you know big cities where a lot of blacks live take a little longer to gather up their votes and send them in. Fox News knew based on the numbers, Gore was going to win.

They didn't know the Bush brothers were going to be throwing out thousands of those votes because of hanging chads.

 

[BackAgain]

I see.

as an “advance expression[ ] of legal judgment upon issues” that are not before a court in the form of litigation involving concrete claims by adverse litigants.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that the issue is before a court in the form of litigation. As is illustrated by the fact that the judgement of the concrete ask of absolute immunity in the litigation is being appealed by Trump.

So, I'll ask again what makes the ask in this motion advisory?

It asks for an advisory opinion: “May I, the special persecutor, please have a grant of permission to take my case to trial?”

No. That’s not how it works. Unless a lower court has tossed the charges, or unless there is a plea or the prosecutor chooses unilaterally to file its cards, indicted cases go to trial. THEN (if there is a conviction), appeals get heard. The “case is controversy” is the one that has already been concluded at the trial level.

If the SCOTUS were to issue an advisory opinion as requested and found that the trial could proceed, then later on down the road, the issue about the invalidity of the very charges would likely have to come up again on appeal. Would it be proper for the Court to then pass judgment on the very issue they previously ruled upon in that very case? No. In fact, as a legal matter, since each of the Justices would have already rendered a prior decision on the matter, they would legally violating the rules against deciding a case before it is brought to them.

Hey. SCOTUS Justices will do what they will. My thought is only one view of it. Others can reasonably disagree. That’s casual.

 

[BackAgain]

There you go again. Just when I think you've grown up...

Keeper post

In other words, you disagree.

And because you happen to disagree, then in your limited view of reality, I become the person who needs to “grow up.”

 

[Robert W]

Reports were all? What is that?

I heard Biden was teaching a class at a University on Classified documents. And when asked he turned them over.

What was Trump doing with them? Clearly he was selling them or giving them away. We caught him on tape ranting to a Mara Lago guest. "Look at this, I'm not even supposed to be showing you this"

Now you can lie and say he wasn't really showing them top secret info but you and I both know better.

Besides classified documents in Biden's garage. Did Biden tell an Australian businessman secrets about our nuclear subs? Trump did. And did Biden tell Russia Israel top secret info that they went and told Iran? Trump did.

Trump clearly mishandles top secret intel and he does for nefarious reasons.

Biden is such a liar we have or me and you have no clue who he showed the classified documents to. And sure there rumors and outright lies about Trump. This has been happening to Trump since 2016 for sure.

Well keep bullshitting the group.

 

[BackAgain]

Huh? "what amounts to?" You want people to believe a federal prosecutor with Smith's experience and knowledge is unaware of the facts?

"Federal courts cannot issue advisory opinions because of the Constitution's case-or-controversy requirement. State courts are not subject to the Constitution's case or controversy requirement and are therefore free to issue advisory opinions so long as their state constitutions allow." advisory opinion

Facts Matter
and you link is credible?

source: NYT (source Trump himself uses)

Special Counsel Asks Supreme Court to Decide Whether Trump Is Immune From Prosecution​

The request was unusual in two ways: Jack Smith asked the justices to rule before an appeals court acted, and he urged them to move with exceptional speed.

“This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin,” Mr. Smith wrote.

He added that speed was of the essence, as Mr. Trump’s appeal of a trial judge’s ruling rejecting his claim of immunity suspends the trial of the charges against him. The trial is scheduled to begin on March 4 in Federal District Court in Washington.

Now:

An advisory opinion is a non-binding interpretation of the law by a court,1. Advisory Opinion, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). essentially the court providing advice on an abstract or hypothetical legal question.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C1-4-1/ALDE_00013563/

I’m sure Smith is well aware of the nature of the dispute, much of the evidence and the law. And I said nothing to the contrary.

It’s not even clear what you’re talking about.

 

[sealybobo]

In other words, you disagree.

And because you happen to disagree, then in your limited view of reality, I become the person who needs to “grow up.”

Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday asked the Supreme Court to take up and rule quickly on whether former President Donald Trump can be prosecuted on charges he plotted to overturn the 2020 election results.

What possible reason could they give that he can't be prosecuted?

First Mitch said he couldn't impeach Trump because he was no longer president. Now you're going to say he can't be prosecuted? Why? Mitch said Trump was guilty of starting the insurrection but impeachment wasn't appropriate because he was no longer president.

So is the Supreme Court going to say presidents are above the law? Bad precedent you are setting here.

 

[sealybobo]

Biden is such a liar we have or me and you have no clue who he showed the classified documents to. And sure there rumors and outright lies about Trump. This has been happening to Trump since 2016 for sure.

Well keep bullshitting the group.

You're nuts if you think Biden is the liar and Trump is honest.

You must be a wack job in real life.

 

[Robert W]

Yes I know that but I also know that even including the panhandle, it was clear Gore won. That's why Fox called it for Gore.

And did you know big cities where a lot of blacks live take a little longer to gather up their votes and send them in. Fox News knew based on the numbers, Gore was going to win.

They didn't know the Bush brothers were going to be throwing out thousands of those votes because of hanging chads.

Blacks which you keep mentioning are truly super slow. What takes them so long?

Bush did not count any of the ballots. Stop blaming Bush. And when Gore and him went to Court, only the Democrats sided with Gore. Gore admitted he lost.

 

[Robert W]

Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday asked the Supreme Court to take up and rule quickly on whether former President Donald Trump can be prosecuted on charges he plotted to overturn the 2020 election results.

What possible reason could they give that he can't be prosecuted?

First Mitch said he couldn't impeach Trump because he was no longer president. Now you're going to say he can't be prosecuted? Why? Mitch said Trump was guilty of starting the insurrection but impeachment wasn't appropriate because he was no longer president.

So is the Supreme Court going to say presidents are above the law? Bad precedent you are setting here.

There was never an insurrection.